To all who have contested my arguments. I made a mistake coming in here and trying to use religion to combat the opinions of most in here. I should have stuck with what I know most about. Everyone is well versed in matters of faith in deities but it seems the faith espoused in evolutionary theory or crackpot history professed by many is vehemently denied. I challenge you all to combat my evidence that I feel disproves evolution. I'll take on historical interpretations used by many to support their various claims about history as well (Ecclesiastical, figures, culture, or any other aspect of history abused here to support the atheist faith, my specialty is Euro history starting with the Crusades up till the Reformation) I can back my arguments up with sound evidence that I feel can refute your conclusions. Feel free to respond in a similar manner. 

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

scuppers wrote:

The disproof of God should be your perogative. In the absence of disproof all you have is faith in notions of no God.  

What does that mean? Are you saying that because we're atheists it's our exclusive privilege to disprove that gods exist? Why don't people who believe in gods have the right to disprove that they exist?

 Your reading to much into my explanation. My belief was fostered on evidence I feel supports it. I'm sure thats how all your opinions form as well. Its our free will that leads us down whatever path we chose. Mine led me reject evolution and accept creation on the evidence. Yours did the opposite. What could or should be thrown out is up to the individual.   The notion of disproof is just a tool we both can use to justify our personal beliefs. When two opinions clash disproof is the only tool at our disposal to argue with. We will make our conclusion and truly believe in its merit. I will accept or throw out what I choose and you will do the same. Its free will supported by evidence I suppose. So what "should" be rejected is entirely up to the individual. Sometimes a lot of individuals agree collectively  on what to reject but those who disagree "should" still have a voice. (just wanted to add before I leave)

 

Yet you haven't disproven any of it really, yes we cannot have every single fossil of every single monkey that has every existed, that's just not going to happen, however we have to look at what is found, including the fossils we do have, the genetic information and make a proper conclusion with what we do have, if the results match with the hypothesis then we move on towards accepting that the new world monkeys came from old world monkeys, and of we have to take in account the most plausible possibility, which so far they have, yes they will never have 100 percent certainty, however what we have is far more plausible than a creator option.

The issue I take with the whole god thing is that there is no evidence that such a being exists, more specifically the judeo-christian god, as it's main attributes depending on the believer contradict each other are implausible or impossible to have. But the main part of course is no evidence to back up such a belief. If evolution is challenged the default option isn't creation, we have to look back at it all and determine a new explanation (or theory if you like) but to date that has not occurred and evolution has a very strong backing of evidence and facts. Where the notion of god has no evidence and is purely on faith, science does back up the evidence, it even stood up in court, I do not believe in faith that there is no god, I am at the default position, I see no evidence that god exists, therefore I have no reason to believe such a being exists.

 

scuppers wrote:

Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

You can tell me I am a murderer and a thief, a person with no concern but material gain that makes my life easier and for making this insult I'm not allowed to tell you to fuck off without you seizing the moral high ground. You claim to be simply presenting a different opinion. 

Telling some one to get stuffed and telling some one they have an inherent desire to steal and kill are insults at entirely different levels whether your mind is subtle enough to comprehend the difference or no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm limiting my evidence here to evolution. I feel that with the evidence I used I can make a hypothesis that evolution is unlikely and in effect creation gains more credibility. You hypothesis is evolution is true therefore making a creator unlikely. I' ve provided my evidence and your argument against it is not convincing to me. Feel free to provide your own evidence and I will argue against it. We don't have to agree but a constructive debate can only help us to understand where we are coming from. My faith is shaped by my studies. I wasn't raised religious. I deduced my belief from evidence. What is the evidence for your faith/belief in evolution?

scuppers wrote:

Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 

"The logic of I don't know..."

Are you suggesting you refuse to accept that in our efforts to comprehend our place in the universe it's 'logically' possible for us to drill back to some mysterious absolute moment of ignition existing outside the universe and driven by we know not what? And this when we can't even comprehend the nature of the universe we live in? What you are suggesting is not logical, it's impossible.

 

Yes, you have an answer.

The validity thereof is suspect and improbable which leaves you with...nothing.

Allow me to demonstrate.

"Do you think Brad and Angelina will work it out after all?"

"Three pounds flax."

Yes, it is an answer, but unintelligible to those of us not steeped in the xtian mysteries. As to your elliptical argument as to the existence of god validated by the...existence of god, this type of argument is beneath contempt. I am a bit surprised that so many people have chosen to respond to you; this type of solipsism is anathema to a thinking individual. Please peddle your ignorant ravings elsewhere; few people have either the time or the inclination to engage such misconstructions.  

I'm not either. Just a historian who dabbled in anthropology for awhile.

scuppers wrote:

Let me verse you on what you don't know about evolution some more.  I'll point you in the right direction if ya wanna contest my views on human evolution: chimpanzees, fire and how it relates to gut and brain size, long arms/short legs, browridges, Gracile and Robust australopiths, Homo habilus, noze size and breathing and how it relates to body temp, Neanderthal DNA discovery, Archaic homo, the problem presented by the missing link (this favors your view), and many many more. Info form these should be easily attainable. Happy research

Again, I can admit what I don't know, however you have still not provided the evidence necessary to discredit evolution as a valid scientific theory, just because I am not well versed in every aspect of evolution doesn't mean I take it on faith, just like I highly doubt you are well versed in all the fields of evolution, from medicine, biology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology developmental biology, geology, physiology and anatomy. In the end there are things we won't know as individuals, however as a species as a whole we do, and even though you don't accept it, that's fine, but you haven't disproved evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

You asked why I accepted evolution and I answered. Your answer that god did it, doesn't really answer anything in the end, and you now have to prove god exists. To which you haven't done at all. If you don't like an honest answer of I don't know, I can't go beyond this part of the conversation, saying god did it, is the most dishonest answer someone can give. I may not know how the universe started, i may not know everything there is about evolution, I may not know everything about astronomy or geology, however what I do know, is that the possibility of the christian god existing is next to nil, as no evidence has ever shown that it exists. However the evidence that evolution is a fact is far far outweighs your god hypothesis so far.

Let me provide an example as examples can provide a clear path to understanding. I will use something I don't believe to help illustrate. When I was learning about the fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus an interesting discussion took place in the classroom. Because a jaw bone from this ape that dates to about 25,000 yrs ago was found in Asia another student asked the professor if this could account for the legends of Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest.  The professor laughed and said it was ridiculous because that would mean it would have made an intercontinental journey. Another student chimed in with the New World monkey theory that is accepted and asked why Giganto couldn't have floated on a breakaway piece of land or crossed the Bering land bridge.. The professor's exact words were "you just had to bring that up." From here the classroom discussion took a break from the usual talk of teeth, jaws, sagital crests, etc. and a fun and lighthearted conversation emerged on Yeti and Bigfoot legends and how they seem to follow a path that originates in Asia and ends up in the Pacific Northwest. The professor's conclusion was that although a small possibility exists that Giganto can explain those legends, in the absence of disproof for what is accepted, such as a living one or fossils found in N. America that post-date 25,000 yrs ago, we must concede to the majority view. This of course doesn't stop some people from believing in Bigfoot and the evidence mentioned is why they continue to insist on their hypothesis. Now me and the professor both agreed that Giganto is not running around in N. America but we both also recognized their is a slim possibility. Lets relate this to my disbelief of evolution. I'll never reject what I see as the very slim possibility of it being valid but the problems of the theory at the highest levels of evolutionary theory convince me its not true. Thats why I use the evidence I do. If you can convincingly disprove my argument with this evidence or other examples by all means I'd love to hear it. I don't think anything you would provide that explains your belief is objectionable entirely. Only that I believe my evidence is superior. You will believe yours is superior. Until God makes his presence known or one animal is observed changing into another all we have is incomplete evidence. We can debate the conclusions we came to from this evidence but in the absence of disproof we have to consider the possibility, no matter how slim we feel it to be, that we might be wrong. I believe 99.99999999999% in my opinion but I have to keep the door minimally cracked open to other possibilities, even ones I reject.

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

Is this a wind up?  So are you actually saying that devout theists have no interest in material gain, hmmn do you know the largest land owners in Scotland (where I am from) is the Church of Scotland, most of it won through the reformation,

Ya know what I don't understand? Why all you guys espouse the same old rehashed stuff all the time. "I don't believe in God, evolution has all this evidence proving it, I'm right and your wrong, blah blah blah." Its like you lay in wait to harp on vernacular inconsistencies at any given chance while I provide evidence and defend it. Just saying something doesn't give it teeth. Give some concrete examples to debate. I am sorely disappointed in ability of you guys defend your arguments. Ya don't even try it seems.

scuppers wrote:

But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

I admit nothing.... I tolerate all ideas, assimilate them into my own beliefs/knowledge, and favor NONE of it.

scuppers wrote:

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

 

Is this a wind up?  So are you actually saying that devout theists have no interest in material gain, hmmn do you know the largest land owners in Scotland (where I am from) is the Church of Scotland, most of it won through the reformation, (killing catholics for material gain). the witch trials, (killing widows for material gain) and the highland clearances where large poor members of the community were persuaded under the threat of ex communication or promise of holy pilgramiges to new lands to leave their home to make space for sheep, more money you know. All of these were instigated or supported by the Churches whome in turn became the lands....and thats just off the top of my head.

 

I am sure even you Scuppers can see that there may have been on occasion instances where theists or churches have acted purely out of material gain, totally unrestricted. TV evangilists springs to mind.